06 Hayles Speculative Aesthetic and Object Oriented Inquiry OOI

8/10/2019 06 Hayles Speculative Aesthetic and Object Oriented Inquiry OOI

1/22

Specula ions: A Jou nal of Specula ive Realism V (2014) 2327-803

htp://specula ions-journal.org

158

Speculat e Aesthet csand Object-Or ented Inquiy (OOI)

N. Ka he ine HaylesDuke Universi y

T varied radi ion o aes he ics, onepremise has always, implici lyor explici ly, remained unques ioned: ha aes he ics has ai s cen re human percep ion. Indeed, his idea is embeddedeven in he e ymology o he erm, which derives rom heGreek ais he ikos, meaning es he ic, sensi ive, sen ien , in

urn derived rom ais hanomai, meaning I perceive, eel,sense. To his premise, specula ive realism issues a s rongchallenge. I endorses he idea ha he cen rali y o he hu-man should be displaced in avour o wha Graham Harmancalls an objec -orien ed philosophy, 1 an approach in whichevery hinghumans, nonhuman biological crea ures, in-anima e objec s, imaginary concep sexis s equally wi houprivileging any viewpoin , especially he human, as he den-ing perspec ive or he o hers.2

1 Harmans ideas were aken up by Levi Bryan , among o hers, who namedhe eld objec -orien ed on ology (OOO), which designa ion Harman has

re rospec ively used o describe his work. Hereafer he eld will be re erredo as OOO.

2 Graham Harman, ool-Being: Heidegge and he Me aphysi s of Obje s (NewYork: Open Cour , 2002), 2, 16 e passim.
http://speculations-journal.org/http://speculations-journal.org/


2/22


3/22

Speculations V

160

A problem wi h his approach is ha we have no idea owha his enjoymen migh consis ; or ins ance, in Harmansexample o he coton and he ame, wha is he na ure o heaes he ic allure each experiences in he o her? An aes he ics

based on his approach would, excep or humans, be devoido con en , beyond he abs rac concep ion o an objec s al-lure or ano her. Moreover, his approach ies specula iveaes he ics oo igh ly o specula ive realism, cons raining i sexpansive po en ial. My pre erred approach, or which I arguehere, is o pu specula ive aes he ics in o conversa ion wi hspecula ive realism bu wi hou gran ing ha specula iverealis principles can con ain all o he possibili ies o which

specula ive aes he ics can righ ully lay claim. To esh ouhis approach, I propose a concomi an me hodology ha Icall objec -orien ed inquiry (OOI), which is indeb ed o OOO

bu also diverges rom i in signican ways.To develop his approach, I ake as my u or ex s wo works

ha par ially overlap and par ially diverge, namely VilmFlussers Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, a rea ise on he vampiresquid , and Ian Bogos s Alien Phenomenology: Wha I s Like

o Be a Ting. 5 Whereas Bogos akes Harmans version o

specula ive realism as his main inspira ion, Flusser, wri inghis rea ise in 1981, ollows a me hod ha could never drawassen rom Harman or Bogos , because i involves projec -ing he human imagina ion in o he nonhuman o her and

hus, ar rom rying o escape an hropomorphism, revelsin i , al hough in a complex ashion ha bo h rein orcesand undermines i simul aneously. Bogos , or his par , ries

ai h ully o ollow specula ive realisms precep s, bu in heprocess develops a me hodology ha undermines a leaspar o i s ideas. These devia ions, however, are consis enwi h (and an impor an inspira ion or) OOI.

Firs le us explore Flussers me hod. Here I mus imme-dia ely in erjec a qualica ion. A he ime Flusser was wri -

5 Vilm Flusser , Vilm Flusse s B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, rans.Rodrigo Mal ex Novaes (Dresden: A ropos Press, 2011); Ian Bogos , AlienPhenomenology, o Wha I s Like o Be a Ting (Minneapolis: Universi y oMinneso a Press, 2012).


4/22

N. Katherine Hayles Speculative Aesthetics

161

ing, very litle was known abou he vampire squid, a speciesha lives in he deep ocean a abou 3,000 ee underwa er.

Since hen, robo ic submarines and ul ra-sensi ive camerascapable o recording images wi h almos no ligh have beendeveloped, and biologis s now can give a much more de-

ailed accoun o he organisms ana omy and behaviours. Iwould be easy o dismiss Flusser because o he assump ionshe makes ha have subsequen ly been shown no o be hecase. For example, in correspondence he carried on whilewri ing his manuscrip , he describes he organism achiev-ing a diame er up o 20 me ers.6 In ac , however, he species

ha biologis s recognise asVampy o eu his infe nalisis doing

good o achieve a diame er o en ime esa hundred- olddifference in size ha makes Flussers descrip ion o hecrea ure as violen and erocious difficul o credi . I ama a loss o explain his discrepancy, shor o suspec ing hahe somehow con used he gian squid (or i s close cousin,

he Humbold squid), which can grow o ha immense size,wi h i s much more diminu ive cousin. Moreover, many as-pec s o his descrip ions o he vampire squids behavioursare clearly over-de ermined by i s name he vampire squid

rom helland his lends his in erpre a ions an exaggera edroman icism no jus ied by he crea ures behaviours inhemselves. Wha ever mis akes Flusser made, however, areor my purposes more or less beside he poin . Wha in eres s

me here is his me hodology and he claims ha he makes ori . I he me hod has meri and I believe i does hen i canmake an impor an con ribu ion, even i Flusser is mis akenabou cer ain par iculars.

Working rom wha he hinks he knows abou Vampyro-eu his, Flusser cons ruc s a binary rela ion wi h he human;

Vampyro eu his is he human inver ed, as in a mirror. Thepurpose is wo- old: o unders and Vampyro eu his hrough

he ways in which he encoun ers he world, and o use hesediscoveries o reveal he Vampyro eu his hidden or repressed

6 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 137.


5/22

Speculations V

162

wi hin human cul ure. 7 Obviously, here is an agenda hereha goes beyond recons ruc ing he worldview o he crea ure,

and his may explain why Flusser wan s him o be seen asone o he op preda ors in his aqueous environmen , mak-ing him parallel o humans as op erres rial preda ors. Heis unapologe ic abou drawing hese parallels, wri ing hahe s udies,

he zoology o cephalopods no because I am able o assume an objec-ive poin o view in rela ion o hem bu , on he con rary, in ordero consider hem as par o he vi al ide ha drags me along wi h i .

I in end o unders and hem in order o orien mysel in my world.

Science is in eres ing precisely because i rela es o me an en irelyobjec ive science would be unin eres ing, inhuman he presen es-say demands ha we give up he ideal o objec ivi y in avour o o herin ersubjec ive scien ic me hods.8

The vampire squid, like o her molluscs, uses he oo o graspand o suck in wa er. The brain is arranged circularly sur-rounding he oo , which is also he mou h. These ac s leadFlusser o he ollowing comparison:

When we erec ed our body, we reed our eyes or he horizon and ourhands or grasping objec s. When Cephalopods erec ed hemselves,

heir percep ion, locomo ion and atack organs were reloca ed owardhe ground, surrounded he mou h, and came in o direc con ac wi hhe brain ha surrounds he mou h.9

He charac erises hese wo pos ures owards he world asra ional and passiona e, respec ively: For man, knowing isa ges ure ha advances agains he world, an ac ive ges ure,while or Vampyro eu his, he world or him is an opposi epole ha has o be sucked in passiona ely.10 He is sexually

7 I ollow Flussers usage in re erring o he organism as he ra her han i .8 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 38.9 Ibid., 39.10 Ibid., 74.


6/22


163

exci ed by he world, making him a passiona e ranscendensubjec , which Flusser iden ies wi h he Devil.11 In a movereminiscen o Lakoff and Johnson (whom he does no ci e),12 he argues ha he crea ures psychology can be in erred romhis biology: When he mou h and anus nd hemselves in

he same organ, he oo , and when he wo nd hemselvesnear he brain, he mou h and anus are cerebralized and he

brain is sexualized. 13Some o Flussers mos in eres ing conjec ures concern

Vampyro eu hian cul ure and ar , and here we see he pay-off or his projec ive me hod. No ing ha every atemp olimi men ali y o he human species is doomed o ailure,

he does no doub ha he crea ure has a rich inner li e.14

Wi hou verbal language, Vampyro eu his communica es inpar hrough he play o colours on his skin, made possible by

he in ernal ac iva ion o chroma ophores, which he uses oatrac ma es. There ore his languages syn ax ... is he logico sex.15 Living in a uid medium, he is unable o cons rucdurable s able objec s, only ee ing ephemeral phenomenalike he sepia ink cloud ha he models in o shapes as pro ec-

ion rom preda ors. In his philosophy, consequen ly, herecanno be or him an immu able orm. He is no Pla onic,he is organismic. I is no philosophical con empla ion, buphilosophical ver igo and i s pos ure. 16 From his poino view, Flusser concludes, he only ma erial or in orma-

ion s orage ha is wor hy o rus is he egg, ha is, gene icin orma ion s orage. This is in sharp con ras o humans,who as Flusser righ ly observes, cons ruc heir his ory bymanipula ing objec s and imprin ing hem wi h in orma ion.While humans rus he permanence o objec s, Vampyro-11 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 77.12 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Me apho s We Live By, 2nd ed. (Chicago:Universi y o Chicago Press, 2003).13 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 57.14 Ibid., 48.15 Ibid., 85.16 Ibid., 79.


7/22

Speculations V

164

eu his seeks his immor ali y in he o her, he seduc ionand camouage ha enables him o atrac ma es. In sum,Flusser concludes, i effec ively comes down o wo differ-en ypes o ar .17 The comparison sugges s ha OOO mayharbour an unrecognised an hropomorphic bias a i s cen re,namely he ascina ion wi h objec s ha is, i no a uniquelyhuman rai , never heless ar more prominen in humans

han in any o her species.The human s ruggle o in orm objec s, ha is, o imprin

hem wi h in orma ion, has gone on or millennia and hass rongly inuenced every eld o human endeavour. ToFlusser, his s ruggle is essen ially aes he ic:

Human ar is no , as he well-meaning bourgeoisie would have us believe,he abrica ion o beau i ul objec s. Human ar is he ges ure hrough

which man imprin s his experience upon he objec o his voca ion inorder o realize himsel in i , o immor alize himsel in i . Every objec

ha is in ormed is here ore a work o ar , be i a ma hema ical equa-ion, poli ical ins i u ion, or symphony.18

For Vampyro eu his, ar is no he crea ion o objec s bu he

seduc ion o he o her: Tha is why when he crea es, Vampy-ro eu his does no experience he resis ance o he objec buhe resis ance o he o her. 19 Since he species some imes

atacks and ea s i s ma e, i is necessary o seduce he o herhrough delibera e decep ion, ar ice and lies. He seeks

his immor ali y by means o violence exer ed on he o her.To him, science and poli ics are no hing bu s ra agems,no hing bu raps.20

In Flussers view, he communica ion revolu ion (bywhich he means primarily elevision, bu which is even ruero he Web)

17 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 106.18 Ibid., 108.19 Ibid., 109.20 Ibid., 111.


8/22


165

consis s o a diversion o he exis en ial in eres s agna ing in objec s back oward he o her. Our communica ional s ruc ures are being

undamen ally rans ormed, in he sense o becoming cons i u ed byephemeral and ransien media ha allow he o her o be in ormedwi hou he need o objec s. I is as i humani y, afer a mul i-millennial

urn hrough he objec ive world, has now reencoun ered he vampy-ro eu hian pa h.21

Even as he wo species come closer in o alignmen , however,he long s ruggle wi h objec s has lef a permanen mark

on human cul ure and biology. We can never become likeVampyro eu his, Flusser main ains, bu we can recognise ha

he lurks in he dep hs o he human, even as he human ishe repressed side o his cul ure and ar .Medi a ing on he evolu ion o communica ion echnolo-

gies, Flusser sugges s ha he in orming process has movedrom objec s o ools as hey become more sophis ica ed. The

wri er becomes oolmaker, he remarks, a proposi ion hanow seems prescien given con emporary works o elec ronicli era ure genera ed by algori hmic processes in which hewri er crea es he code ( ha is, makes he ool) and hen he

ool crea es he ex ual ou pu .22 A case in poin is Mark Ma-rinos essay Reading exquisi e_ ode: Cri ical Code S udies oLi era ure, in which he vir ually ignores he nished noveland concen ra es almos exclusively on he live coding sessionsand algori hmic processes ha crea ed i .23 In Flussers view,

his ina ionary ide o devalued objec s leads o a disin eresin objec s ... Socie ys in eres is increasingly diver ed romobjec s owards in orma ion, which however is inaccessible

21 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 114. For an excellen rea men oFlussers view o media in his ex , see Melody Jue, Re raming Pho ography

hrough he Vampire Squid in Vilm Flussers Vampyro eu his In ernalis,unpublished ms.22 Ibid., 113.23 Mark Marino, Reading exquisi e_ ode: Cri ical Code S udies o Li era ure,in Compa a ive ex ual Media: ansfo ming he Humani ies in he Pos p in E a,ed. N. Ka herine Hayles and Jessica Pressman (Minneapolis: Universi y oMinneso a Press, 2013), 283-310.


9/22

Speculations V

166

o consumers. I is s ored in he memory o appara us and isransmited, dilu ed, no only by gadge s, bu also and above

all else by he ephemeral channels o mass communica ion.24Al hough Flusser (or anyone else) migh have arrived ahese insigh s wi hou knowing any hing abouVampy o eu his

infe nalis, he pa h hrough he comparison has resul ed inde-na uralising human presupposi ions, enabling a cri icals ance owards assump ions abou aes he ics, along wi h muchelse. In summary, he me hod here has been o ex rapola e

rom a base o scien ic evidence (Flusser says ha hepresen able is more or less in ormed by biology), 25 usinghuman imagina ive projec ions o unders and he alien

crea ure no only in biological erms bu in erms o i s ownphenomenological experience o he world. Moreover, orFlusser, i is precisely because o he mirror rela ion be ween

he human and he Vampyro eu his ha hese projec ions cansucceed. This implies a double ges ure o using he biologis sknowledge bu also going beyond i in o wha can be knownonly because o he deeply shared rela ionship: hus hepresen able hopes o be able o exorcise Vampyro eu his,and o make him emerge alive. 26

On some poin s, Ian Bogos would agree wi h Flusser. Forexample, Flusser wri es ha we mus libera e ourselves aboveall rom a model according o which exis ence is he mee ingo a ranscenden al subjec (a mind) wi h objec s; o a sel wi h a world. According o his model, or example, knowl-edge would be he mee ing be ween he one-who-knows wi hwha -is- o-be known.27 This s rongly resona es wi h Bogos spronouncemen ha The philosophical subjec mus cease

o be limi ed o humans and hings ha inuence humans.Ins ead i mus become ever hing , ull s op. 28 Ye Bogoswould cer ainly be uneasy wi h Flussers in ersubjec ive24 Flusser, B azilian Vampy o eu his Infe nalis, 114.25 Ibid., 123.26 Ibid., 124.27 Ibid., 71.28 Bogos , Alien Phenomenology, 10, original emphasis.


10/22


167

scien ic me hods, especially his de ermina ion o cons ruche Vampyro eu his as he roman icised mirror o her ohe human, because i s ill leaves in ac he human as an es-

sen ial re erence poin .Bogos s rejec ion o a human-cen ric posi ion is eviden

in his commen s on Thomas Nagels amous essay, Wha IsI Like o be a Ba ?29 He empha ically endorses he dis inc-

ion Nagel draws be ween experiencing ones species-hoodrom he inside and in erring i rom scien ic evidence

abou a crea ures sense percep ions and behaviours. Herewe migh hink o a similar dis inc ion ha Pierre Bourdieudraws be ween a ribal peoples habi us, he s ruc ures ha

organise heir way o being in he world, and he in erencesha an an hropologis may draw rom observing heir behav-iours. 30 For he people, he paterns ha in orm he layou o

heir villages, he archi ec ure o heir buildings, and heir behaviours as hey enac radi ional ways o doing hings, areno necessarily ever consciously considered; ra her, hey areabsorbed unconsciously as he righ and proper ways o live.Once abs rac ed in o an an hropologis s calendar, diagrams,and my hic s ruc ures, he habi us ceases o be a way o liv-

ing and ins ead becomes an abs rac ion, a differen kind oknowledge al oge her. Similarly, wha i is like o know aboua ba is al oge her differen han wha i is like obe a ba .

The ques ion o wha kinds o knowledge are accessible ous is cen ral bo h o Bogos s argumen and Harmans OOO.Following Harman, Bogos accep s ha all objec s recedein erminably in o hemselves, which implies ha puting

hings a he cen er o a new me aphysics also requires uso admi ha hey do no exis jus or us.31 De ermined o

avoid an an hropomorphic perspec ive and gran ing ha wecan never know objec s in hemselves, Bogos is never helesspower ully drawn o say some hing abou objec s in hem-29 Thomas Nagel, Wha Is I Like o Be a Ba ? Te Philosophical Review (1974), 83:4, 435-50.30 Pierre Bourdieu, Ou line of a Teor of P ac ice (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversi y Press, 1977).31 Bogos , Alien Phenomenology, 10.


11/22

Speculations V

168

selves. Bu how is his possible i objec s always wi hdraw?Harman solves his problem by dis inguishing be ween anobjec s sensual quali ies (i s allure) and i s essence; simi-larly, Bogos s solu ion is o emphasise ha any hing we cansay abou objec s rom an eviden iary basis is a carica ure, arepresen a ion in which he one is drawn in o he dis or edimpressions o he o her. 32 Quo ing Harman, he iden iessuch a represen a ion as a me aphor: I s a move ha solvesNagels puzzle: we never unders and he alien experience, weonly ever reach or i me aphorically.33 From here he goes on

o develop me aphorism as his me hod o choice, deploying

me aphor i sel as a way o grasp alien objec s percep ions o one ano her.Me aphorism offers a me hod or alien phenomenology ha grasps ahe way objec s bask me aphorically in each o hers no es [Harmans

name or he sensual atribu es o an objec ] by means o me aphori sel , ra her han describing he effec s o such in erac ions on heobjec s. I offers a cri ical process or charac erizing objec percep ions.34

Where I begin o depar rom Bogos and Harman is on he issueo how objec s mani es hemselves. Whereas hey emphasise

an objec s allure, he atrac ion i emana es or o her objec s,more impor an in my experience is he resis ance objec soffer o human manipula ion and unders anding. During mydays as a scien is , my experiences included such resis anceson an everyday basis, rom using spec rum analysis o iden i yan elemen o de ermining he composi ion o chemicalsin a solu ion. Andrew Pickering wri es eloquen ly abou heimpor ance o resis ance inTe Mangle of P a i e,where hemangle is he cyclic process o a human prodding and prob-ing a nonhuman objec o answer some ques ion.35 The objecresponds by resis ing he humans inquiry, in a con inuing32 Bogos , Alien Phenomenology, 64.33 Ibid., 66.34 Ibid., 67. Whe her his ploy sa is ac orily resolves he issue is a mooques ion, as he ollowing discussion makes clear.35 Andrew Pickering, Te Mangle of P a i e: ime, Agenc, and S ien e (Chicago:Universi y o Chicago Press, 1995).


12/22


169

dialec ic in which he resis ance orces he ques ions o bemodied, and he modied ques ions uncover new ormso resis ance. One could see his as he crea ive complemen

o Heideggers presen - o-hand versus ready- o-hand. Herei is no he momen he hammer breaks ha brings i in oour awareness, bu ra her he con inually rans orming andmorphing resis ance ha leads o expanding and deepeningknowledge. Resis ance is crucial because, al hough objec scanno ell us wha hey are, hey can ell us wha hey areno . Resis ance enables us o dis inguish a rock rom a ree, aHiggs boson rom a quark. The difference be ween resis anceand acquiescence is ha acquiescence is always me aphoric,

whereas resis ance is decisive: Wha ever I am, Im no ha ,an objec can respond o human probing. This dis inc ion be ween posi ive and nega ive knowledge sugges s ha ourknowledge o objec s is always rela ive o o her objec s ra her

han o an objec s essence in i sel , al hough nega ive answersdo allow or increasingly ne dis inc ions. Tha his processhas no necessary end coincides wi h Harmans con en ion haan objec s reserve can never be exhaus ed. A imes, Harmanseems o recognise he impor ance o an objec s resis ance,

as in his passage rom Te Quad uple Objec :A real objec has no closer link wi h i s own real quali ies han wi h

he sensual quali ies ha one would never dream o ascribing o i a real objec is real and has a deni e charac er, bu i s essence is rsproduced rom he ou side hrough causal in erac ions. 36

From he ou side here can be in erpre ed o mean preciselyhe kind o probing ha is par o he mangle o prac ice.Ye a signican difference emerges here as well, or Harman

re uses o quan i y he ex en o which a real objec wi hdraws,main aining ha i wi hdraws inni ely. According o him,

hen, here can never be an increase in knowledge; we cannever know more or less abou a given objec . This seems

o me con radic ed by scien ic, echnical, and engineer-

36 Graham Harman, Te Quad uple Objec (Winches er: Zero, 2011), 106.


13/22

Speculations V

170

ing knowledge, as well as by everyday experience. Moreover,Harman also resis s wha he calls scien ic na uralism,main aining ha i seeks o undermine objec s by reducing

hem o heir elemen ary componen s, such as sub-a omicpar icles. 37 I hink his ear is grea ly exaggera ed, as mosscien is s recognise here are emergen effec s ha appear adifferen levels o organisa ion. Effec s no no iceable a hemolecular level, or example, may appear a he cellular level;effec s no no iceable a he cellular level may appear a helevel o he organism, and so on. Few scien is s believe hareduc ionis s ra egies can succeed in explaining every hing.

Like Harman, Bogos also argues ha scien ic na ural-

ism, which he ma ches up wi h social rela ivism, is deeplyawed. The case agains social rela ivism is s raigh orward:i is rejec ed because i explains even s hrough he machi-na ions o human socie ypar icularly he complex, evo-lu ionary orms o cul ure and language. 38 Wi h scien icna uralism, however, he case is ar rom clear, and indeedis seemingly con radic ed in Bogos s wonder ul accoun o

he Foveon-equipped Sigma DP digi al image sensor, whichdraws deeply on scien ic and engineering knowledge. Bogos

is in eres ed in he differences be ween how he human eyeperceives in si ua ions o low ligh in ensi y and how hedigi al image sensor perceives. In exploring hese differences,he impor an ly opens he possibili y ha an objec -orien edapproach can be eshed ou hrough me iculous accoun s ohow nonhuman objec s experience he worldor o pu iin more general erms, he ways nonhuman objec s have o

being in he world.As men ioned earlier, Bogos is care ul o say ha his accoun

is a carica ure ra her han an accura e represen a ion, whichis orbidden by he idea ha objec s wi hdraw inni ely romone ano her.39 The choice o erms, which he akes over romHarman, is signican : a carica ure differs rom a por rai or

37 Harman, Te Quad uple Objec , 13-18.38 Bogos , Alien Phenomenology, 13.39 Ibid., 13, 65-66.


14/22


171

pho ograph precisely because i exaggera es selec ed ea ures,in his way making clear ha he objec is represen ed in adis or ed ashion, and ha embodied in his dis or ion is acer ain perspec ive. As no ed earlier, he also re ers o suchaccoun s as me aphors. To his credi , he recognises haan hropocen rism may be unavoidable:

we can nd evidence or our specula ions on percep ion even i weare only ever able o charac erize he resul ing experiences as me a-phors bound o human correla es he answer o correla ionism isno he rejec ion o any correla e bu he acknowledgemen o endlessones, all sel -absorbed, observed by givenness ra her han urpi ude. 40

Expanding on his idea, I no e ha wha is ofen called hehuman perspec ive is no singular bu mul iple, no only because o differences in language and cul ures, bu evenmore impor an ly, because he devices humans have inven ed

o expand heir sensory and percep ual ranges crea e a widevarie y o differen perspec ives, rom op ical microscopes

o par icle accelera ors, radiocarbon da ing o seismic de-ec ors. I we accep Bogos s proposi ion ha he answer

o correla ionism is no he rejec ion o any correla e buhe acknowledgemen o endless ones, hen humans as aspecies have developed ways o access ar more perspec ives

han any o her species.No wi hs anding his allegiance o OOO, Bogos shows ha an

objec -orien ed accoun can be developed rom an eviden iary basis. O herwise, wha possibili ies are here or he develop-men o OOO, assuming ha one is no a philosopher? Onecan imagine ha philosophers will con inue o argue abouwha cons i u es OOO, modi ying or con es ing he ramework,

bu or robus developmen and dissemina ion beyond herela ively narrow boundaries o specula ive philosophy, herehave o be ways o apply OOO ha move beyond on ologicalques ions o epis emological, social, cul ural and poli ical is-sues. I is precisely his ask ha OOI under akes by building

40 Bogos , Alien Phenomenology, 78.


15/22

Speculations V

172

bridges be ween eviden iary accoun s o objec s ha emergerom he resis ances and engagemen s hey offer o human

inquiry, and imagina ive projec ions in o wha hese implyor a given objec s way o being in he world.How migh his me hodology work? Firs , one needs a

subs an ial body o knowledge, usually gained rom scien ic,echnical, or engineering sources. Then one ex rapola es

in o percep ions or world views, specula ing abou how haobjec encoun ers he world. Implici in his procedure is anassump ion ha scien is s, echnicians and engineers akeso deeply or gran ed ha i is no an assump ion so muchas a presupposi ion. To exis in he world, every objec ha

does so mus have a cer ain in ernal coherence; o herwise, icould no endure or even a nanosecond. This is obvious inhe case o biological organisms, winnowed hrough evolu-ionary dynamics. Bu i is also rue o all real objec s, romhe ensile s reng h o heir componen s o he s abilisa ions

o he a omic orbi s ha hold hem oge her. Because o hiscoherence, i is possible o develop accoun s ha have causaland predic ive efficacy. This does no mean, however, hasuch accoun s have exhaus ed (or can ever exhaus ) all o an

objec s way o being in he world.Indeed, par o my atrac ion o specula ive realism is i sinsis ence ha objec s resis us knowing hem comple ely,wi hdrawing heir essence in an inni e regress while s illsending ou heir alluring sensual quali ies. I made a nounrela ed dis inc ion when I wro e abou he difference

be ween physicali y and ma eriali y. 41 Physicali y in myunders anding is similar o an objec s essence; po en iallyinni e, i is unknowable in i s o ali y. Wha we can know,however, are he physical quali ies ha presen hemselves

o us, which I designa ed as ma eriali y. Wha dis inguishesmy posi ion rom ha o Harman and Bogos , however, is

ha or me objec s do no passively presen heir quali ies;ra her, humans atend o cer ain quali ies in specic con ex s

41 N. Ka herine Hayles, My Mo he Was a Compu e : Digi al Subje s and Li e arex s (Chicago: Universi y o Chicago Press, 2005), 103-04.


16/22


173

or mo iva ed reasons. The same is rue o a lion hun ing agazelle or an ins rumen perceiving he number encoded inan RFID (Radio Frequency Iden ica ion) ag.42 Quali ies areneve perceived in heir o ali y bu only wi hin he rameworksand con ex s ha dene he rela ion o one objec o ano her.This is why I am sympa he ic o Jane Bennets argumen inVib an Mate : A Poli ical Ecology of Tings ha rela ionali yhas o be par o he pic ure, or i is hrough rela ions haone objec senses he specic par s o ano her objec s alluregermane or he rs objec s purposes and con ex s.43

Does his mean ha rela ions are conned o human per-cep ions, or even more narrowly o human consciousness?

Deni ely no ! S even Shaviro, in a 2011 con erence paperen i led Panpsychism and/or Elimina ivism, argues ha iwe accep ha hough (or eeling or experience) need no beconscious, hen we migh well be led o abandon he demar-ca ion be ween mind and mater al oge her ... I propose ha[panpsychism] gives us a good way o avoid he problema ic

baggage bo h o consciousness and o phenomenologicalin en ionali y.44 He goes on o clari y ha even i every hingis mind ul, or has a mind ... his does no necessarily en ail

ha every hing is given or mani es ed o a mind. 45 Rela-ions be ween objec s need no and cer ainly do no imply haconscious hough is necessary or rela ionali y. Conscious

hough or humans represen s only a small par o heirprocessing o in orma ion rom he environmen , and ornonhuman objec s such as he exper sys ems and RFID agsmen ioned above, conscious hough does no opera e a all.46 42 For a discussion o how RFID ags work and heir cul ural implica ions,

see my RFID: Human Agency and Meaning in In orma ion-In ensiveEnvironmen s, Teor, Cul u e and Societ (2009), 26:2-3, 1-24.43 Jane Bennet, Vib an Ma e : A Poli ical Ecology of Tings (Durham: DukeUniversi y Press, 2010).44 S even Shaviro, Panpsychism and/or Elimina ivism, The PinocchioTheory, www.shaviro.com/Blog /p=1012 (accessed July 1, 2013).45 Shaviro, Panpsychism and/or Elimina ivism, 7.46 This argumen is developed more ully in my book How We Tink: Digi al Media and Con empo ar e hnogenesis (Chicago: Universi y o Chicago Press,2012), 85-122.
http://www.shaviro.com/Bloghttp://www.shaviro.com/Blog


17/22

Speculations V

174

Never heless, hese objec s en er in o rela ions wi h o herobjec s and have heir own ways o parsing ano her objec squali ies, encoun ering hem (and some imes ac ing upon

hem) wi hin heir own con ex s and rameworks.Wha specula ive realism can learn rom hese accoun s is

an awareness ha , despi e an objec s wi hdrawal, iis possibleo say a grea deal abou a real objec s real quali ies. Wha

i can each is ha hese accoun s are always par ial repre-sen a ions o an objec s ma eriali y ra her han an accura erepresen a ion o he objec in i sel , and or en irely differenreasons ha a correla ionis accoun would give. Over andabove hese lessons o and rom specula ive realism, here

are o her con ribu ions ha specula ive aes he ics can make.Here Flusser is use ul, or he is very clear on his issue: hisin ersubjec ive scien ic me hods, al hough origina ingin a biological basis o ac , go ar beyond hem by using hishuman imagina ion o projec wha ar , cul ure, and languageanalogues would be or he Vampyro eu his. I he some imes

blurs he line be ween me aphor (or analogy) and biologi-cal ac , and i he also has a s rong bias oward cons ruc ingVampyro eu his as he roman icised o her o he human, he

never heless achieves provoca ive in erpre a ions ha reveal by con ras assump ions ha would o herwise remain opaque,such as our ascina ion wi h objec s as durable subs ra es hacan be in ormed by humans and hereby serve as a kind oimmor ali y. By imagina ively projec ing Vampyro eu hissar and cul ure, he enables us o see our own more clearly.

In Vib an Ma e , Bennet explici ly connec s he humancapaci y o projec imagina ively in o o her en i ies wi haes he ics: she wan s o use argumen s and o her rhe ori-cal means o induce in human bodies an aes he ic-affec iveopenness o ma erial vi ali y.47 No surprisingly, in her recenessay Sys ems and Things: A Response o Graham Harmanand Timo hy Mor on, she argues or a s ronger role orrela ionali y, poin ing ou ha here may be no need ochoose objec s or heir rela ions. The projec , hen, would

47 Bennet, Vib an Ma e , x.


18/22


19/22

Speculations V

176

essay appears, we would, according o Whi ehead, concludeha i has negligible relevance.My own view is ha rela ions exis wi hin sys ems, andhe organisa ion o componen s wi hin a sys em de ermines

wha rela ions i will have. O course, he boundaries osys ems are ofen uzzy; hey overlap and rans orm, no omen ion ha human perspec ives de ermine wha coun s asa sys em boundary. Never heless, he dynamics o sys emsare clearly o differen kinds. The effec o encapsula ingrela ions wi hin objec s, as Harman does, is o mask hesys ems dynamics and make i difficul o hink abou hedynamics a all. The black boxing o rela ions obli era es he

specici y o how complex sys ems work. In chao ic, complex,and complex adap ive sys ems, mul iple recursive eedbackloops make such sys ems ex raordinarily sensi ive o smallper urba ions; some hing as small as he proverbial appingo a buterys wing can have cascading large-scale rippleeffec s. Change does no require, as Harman seems o hink,

he emergence o new kinds o rela ions; all i requires aresys emic organisa ions ha end oward ins abili y ra her

han s abili y. The more in erconnec ed such a sys em is, he

more liable i is o cons an change, ra her han an absenceo change. A clear dis inc ion be ween objec s and rela ionswould help o make complex dynamics visible and ensure

ha he reserves in rinsic o objec s are s rongly correla edo he kinds o rela ions in which hey engage.Puting rela ions back in o he pic ure empowers he OOI

me hodology o imagina ive projec ion in o nonhuman o h-ers as a heore ical possibili y or specula ive aes he ics hais ei her orbidden (in Harmans case) or under- heorised(in Bogos s argumen ). This leads o a s rong paradox: hu-man imagina ion is he bes way, and perhaps he only way,

o move beyond an hropocen rism in o a more nuancedunders anding o he world as comprised o a mul i ude oworld views, including hose o o her biological organisms,human-made ar e ac s, and inanima e objec s. Bennet makesa similar poin :


20/22


177

Maybe i s wor h running he risks associa ed wi h an hropomorphiz-ing (supers i ion, he diviniza ion o na ure, roman icism) becausei , oddly enough, works agains an hropocen rism: a chord is s ruck

be ween a person and hinking, and I am no longer above or ou sidea nonhuman environmen . 52

Empowering he role ha human imagina ion plays in al-lowing us o go beyond an hropocen rism poses ano herchallenge o OOO. Even i his is heresy wi hin he rame-work o specula ive realism, one could argue ha humans,among all he objec s and species ha exis on ear h, canimagina ively projec hemselves in o he worldviews o

o her objec s along a grea er spec rum o quali ies han moso her objec s can do. We know ha many o her species arecapable o cons ruc ing men al models o how o hers hinkand perceive. The evidence is especially s rong in he caseo o her prima es, bu one could also include such compu erprograms as exper sys ems and in erence engines, includ-ing hose cons ruc ed o crea e narra ives. Never heless, onecould concede ha humans exceed all hese in he scope andvarie y o imagina ive projec ions. Does his hen mean ha

human specialness mus be reins a ed afer all? Along wi hhe specula ive realis s and ellow ravellers such as Timo-hy Mor on, I agree ha humans need o be more humble

abou heir abili ies and more recep ive oward he abili ieso wha Bennet calls lively mater o ac in he world. Theconundrum can be resolved by recognising ha humansneed his abili y more han mos objec s because hey aremore inclined o hink o hemselves as special. In effec , heabili y o humans o imagina ively projec hemselves in oo her objec s experience o he world isnecessar o comba

he an hropocen rism and narcissism or which he humanspecies is no orious. Wi hou i , we would be in worse s rai s

han we are; i is he silver lining ha enables us o overcomehe biases o specialness and reach ou o unders and o her

objec s by analogy, al hough never (as Nagel, Harman and

52 Bennet, Vib an Ma e , 120.


21/22

Speculations V

178

Bogos poin ou ) in he erms ha he objec s hemselvesexperience. Perhaps his is wha Bogos means by his enig-ma ic pronouncemen , i alicised or emphasis: all hingsequally exis , ye hey do no exis equally.53

Wha does all his mean or specula ive aes he ics? I s ar edwi h he observa ion ha human percep ion has always beencen ral o aes he ics and no ed he s rong challenge haspecula ive realism poses o ha assump ion. I ended byarguing ha he way o escape an hropocen rism is precisely

hrough an imagina ive projec ion in o he worldviews oo her objec s and beings, based on evidence abou heir wayso being in he world, al hough wi h he impor an cavea

ha hese are analogies and should no be mis aken or anobjec s own experience.I specula ive realism is modied in hese argumen s, so

is aes he ics. The radi ional division in aes he ics be weenhose who hold ha aes he ics is grounded in he objec s own

quali ies, and hose who loca e i in human percep ion, is in acer ain sense used in o a single approach which holds ha heobjec s own quali ies are expressed hrough he eviden iary

bases, and ha hese are apprehended by human imagina ion

and percep ion o crea e analogue projec ions o an objec sworld view. A he same ime, aes he ics is separa ed rom i sradi ional basis in beau y and re-loca ed in he endeavouro recognise ha every real objec possessesor even more

s rongly, has a igh oi s own experience o he world, in-cluding biological, anima e, and inanima e objec s.

This approach, I conclude, has a s rong claim o be calledspecula ive aes he ics. Inuenced by specula ive realism, idoes no slavishly ollow i s precep s bu uses specula iverealisms bes insigh s o re-dene he aes he ic mission. WhaI have s aged in his essay is a kind o Zen ennis ma ch be-

ween specula ive realism and specula ive aes he ics, in whichhe wo are posi ioned less as an agonis s han as par ners,

each helping he o her o per orm a a higher level. Seen inhis ligh , specula ive aes he ics is no so much a deriva ive

53 Bogos , Alien Phenomenology, 11.


22/22


179

rom specula ive realism as a complemen ary perspec ive based in he me hodology o OOI, po en ly sui ed o a pos -human world in which o her species, objec s, and ar icialin elligences compe e and coopera e o ashion he dynamicenvironmen s in which we all live.

06 Hayles Speculative Aesthetic and Object Oriented Inquiry OOI

Documents